 | | Re: economics of set 3225 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | (...) Yes, and welcome to the debate, even if you've come a bit late. Been thrashed around a bit already. I'd probably have let it slide if you hadn't introduced "Pullman" (1) TLG is wrong. A thing is what it is, not what someone claims it is. This (...) (26 years ago, 4-Mar-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: economics of set 3225 —David Blomberg
|
| | | | | Larry! What sacrilege. How could TLG be wrong? If they say it is a caboose, it must be! Just put on your Town Jr. glasses and then make a decision as to what it is. (Just kidding, I know it's a coach) (26 years ago, 4-Mar-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: economics of set 3225 —Robin Werner
|
| | | | | | Hay, The TLG has been wrong for years! Long before Town Jr. just look at some of the old S@H catalogs. Robin :) P.S. I like this set(3225) good parts at good price but I think they can do better. (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: economics of set 3225 —Matthew Bates
|
| | | | (...) While we're being pedantic, it's not TLG that is wrong, it's the US Lego Shop at Home service that is wrong. S@H may be part of TLG but it is not TLG. S@H (and LEGO Systems Inc of North America) seem to make up their own names for things (...) (26 years ago, 5-Mar-99, to lugnet.trains)
|
| | | | |
